"Medicare For All" Would Likely Be Long (And Sometimes Deadly) Waits For All
That's what Sally Pipes reports in Forbes about Britain's version of Medicare For All, the NHS:
Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more.Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.
Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. That's well below the country's goal of treating 95% of patients within four hours -- a target the NHS hasn't hit since 2015.
Now, instead of cutting wait times, the NHS is looking to scrap the goal.
Wait times for cancer treatment -- where timeliness can be a matter of life and death -- are also far too lengthy. According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn't start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary care doctor. That's the worst performance since records began in 2009.
And keep in mind that "on time" for the NHS is already 62 days after referral.
Unsurprisingly, British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America.
The NHS also routinely denies patients access to treatment. More than half of NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups, which plan and commission health services within their local regions, are rationing cataract surgery. They call it a procedure of "limited clinical value."
It's hard to see how a surgery that can prevent blindness is of limited clinical value. Delaying surgery can cause patients' vision to worsen -- and thus put them at risk of falls or being unable to conduct basic daily activities.
Democrats in this country are working hard to take any level of choice out of healthcare:
Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren -- co-sponsored Senator Bernie Sanders's 2017 "Medicare for All" bill. That plan would abolish private insurance and put all Americans on a single government-run plan that covers nearly all medical services -- including hospital and doctor visits, prescription medication, and dental and vision care.Even Great Britain's system of socialized medicine doesn't ban private insurance.
It's like our government is being run by children who wear bras and shave, who can't process a thought beyond the initial, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if...?!"
> Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.
Yeah, kinda glosses over the fact that when it was properly funded, it was among the best healthcare in the world, and has undergone a couple generations of erosion and underfunding by those profiteers seeking to undermine it to give reason to turn it into a system like in usa. :P
The maxim of for-profit "healthcare":
"A patient cured is a customer lost."
Your whole article here cites the problems that are intentionally created to undermine the NHS, pushing it to privatization, as if it were always this impared. This is not inherent to a free-at-point-of-use compassionate system. This is the state the NHS has succumbed to via the attack on it by plutocrats and oligarchs.
Also, seemingly implying there's no choice in our system is wrong too.
All the failings of the NHS as is, are a result of the plan to turn it into the US system. For profit. At expense of health. It wasn't always like that. Don't fall for it.
The situation is more telling once you stop conflating England and Britain as if the same thing. England is just one of the 4 nations that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And the one with the most corporatist right-wing/authoritarian incumbent political party in charge of their portion of the NHS. Compare the stats to Scotland, and you see since NHS became a devolved matter to hollyrood, out of the hands of westminster, vast differences, vast improvements, from better funding, by the incumbent and ever so moderate and centrist rational SNP. Thus further highlighting the point I'm making here, that the dogma of "for-profit is inherently better than socialised healthcare" has no legs to stand on. Gotta beware these dogmas and the cherry picked "little bit of information"s that back them up in isolation. Are things perfect in Scotland's NHS? No. Far from it still. But for all its shortcomings (much of which can still be tracked back to westminster), and all its still suffering betrayal, I'd take it over the nightmare of being hosed for every penny and betrayed for profits as I see over and over in USA's system, and like I say, it's head and shoulders above what's happening in England, without changing the underlying paradigm of free healthcare for all.
And I wonder, just how many never even make it to the Dr in USA, because they cant afford it (I can only guestimate "a lot", given how often I hear that sort of thing). Must be nice to not have them gumming up the statistics. :P Not to mention all the other ways the statistics get massaged and fudged... because we wouldn't want to hurt the bottom line, right? No conflict of interests there eh. lol.
(Sorry if that comes across as snippy/grumpy. It's been a long and rough day of wall to wall nonsense. Night night.)
Digit at April 3, 2019 3:23 AM
Properly funded? You mean before people discovered they could use it for any twitch or ache and began to overwhelm the system. That underfunding of which you speak, is actually underestimating the usage volume. Governments are good at underestimating usage of taxpayer-paid programs and over-estimating usage of programs that "will pay for themselves" (bullet-train ridership anyone?).
How often you hear that sort of thing, eh? Hearing that sort of thing over there, are you? Don't believe the horror stories told by people with an agenda.
Conan the Grammarian at April 3, 2019 4:48 AM
Apparently according to Digit, I guess they just need a few more unicorns to poop out* proper funding* for the NHS.
Isab at April 3, 2019 4:55 AM
When was it ever, in reality, different? There has always been a contingent in American politics that believed a government solution could be found to any problem, every economic hiccup was a major "problem," and refused to look beyond the government for that solution.
Conan the Grammarian at April 3, 2019 5:04 AM
"Your whole article here cites the problems that are intentionally created to undermine the NHS"
The usual socialist excuse. Like all of the electrical blackouts in Venezuela are being caused by American saboteurs.
Cousin Dave at April 3, 2019 7:48 AM
Also, seemingly implying there's no choice in our system is wrong too.
Only if you have a sick kid they've decided not to treat. Then not only do they forbid you from seeking treatment in their facilities, they also forbid you from taking your child to another country were they're willing to treat the child without cost to the UK taxpayers.
Y'all are not citizens, y'all are serfs.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 3, 2019 8:02 AM
Digit wrote:
when it was properly funded, it was among the best healthcare in the world swhen it was properly funded
The only reason it appeared to be "properly funded" was because the politicians and bureaucrats never disclosed to the public the true cost of the system as affected by changing demographics and the ever-increasing change in standards of care. Once the "baby boom" hit the age requiring increased medical care, retired, and stopped paying into a tax surplus, the true cost of the promised care became apparent. All of this was entirely foreseeable a long, long time ago, and politicians could have raised taxes to properly fund the care promised. If they had done so, they would have been voted out of office. So they lied. Repeatedly. And they're still lying.
If the politicians and bureaucrats administering the NHS were held to the standard of private insurance companies, they would be guilty of financial fraud. Its a pyramid scheme with governmental immunity.
Of course, NHS could restrict the standard of care to that available when the beneficiaries/taxpayers paid into the system. That way, they'd have some idea of the true cost of care, and let the electorate decide if they want to pay for it.
But that's not what the politicians promised. They promised to provide an unknown standard of care at an unknown cost for a lifetime. Funny how that doesn't work in real life, and you end up with shortages and rationing.
This is not inherent to a free-at-point of use compassionate system
If "inherent" means the foreseeable economic effects at providing a good to the public at below market value, it most certainly is.
Dale at April 3, 2019 8:37 AM
I've discussed healthcare with several Brits over the years. They all sound like Idgit above-- "We love our healthcare system. When will you backward rubes get on board like the rest of the civilized world?"
They are immune to facts and reality. They are going to defend their "system" to the death... while waiting months for an urgent treatment.
Kent McManigal at April 3, 2019 8:41 AM
When London had the olympics last, they opening ceremonies were a paean to the NHS. It was an overt propaganda piece they I (in the US) found bizarre. The NHS tells people that they don't need knee or hip replacement, when they are in a wheelchair.
Yes some people in the US lack good care. But the poor already have socialized medicine called Medicaid. Some people choose not to have health insurance for various reasons--that is not a failure of the system. Elizabeth Warren's "study" that most bankrupt people were bankrupted by medical costs was itself bankrupt.
cc at April 3, 2019 8:55 AM
So what are this sub's thoughts on HR5, the "Equality" act?
NicoleK at April 3, 2019 9:46 AM
Brits are like abused women who won't leave their abuser..."but I love him, when we first got together he was so wonderful and besides, he only beats me when he drinks..." Yeah, too bad he drinks every day...As noted by others, fear of the unknown keeps them in line and devoted to their third world medicine....
Sheep Mom at April 3, 2019 10:09 AM
The author needs to work on the impact of displaying his statistics.
Which sounds better:
"Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America."
vs
The difference in death rates at 5 years from prostate cancer is pretty staggering. US is at 3%, but in the UK almost six times as likely to die at 17%.
The same numbers just showing the impact and difference better.
Joe J at April 3, 2019 2:30 PM
It's not just fear of the unknown but a systematic push by the media. Remember most Americans get their health insurance through work, with the company paying much of the bill. With their portion coming out automatically like their taxes and a dozen other things that are taken out of their check.
We have been beaten over the head with how much we pay, but people couldn't say how much Social Security takes, or Medicare takes or Fed or whatever else is taken out.
Joe J at April 3, 2019 5:05 PM
"and has undergone a couple generations of erosion and underfunding by those profiteers seeking to undermine it to give reason to turn it into a system like in usa."
No, it's undergone a couple generations of the inevitable law of supply and demand. Supply is restricted (it's no easier in the UK to get into med school than anywhere else, and you remove the motivator of making the big money) and demand becomes infinite as the price is suppressed to zero. That's the recipe for a shortage.
And the royalty of the Middle East, who can choose any medical care they want, STILL fly over the UK to get to the USA for their procedures.
bw1 at April 3, 2019 5:47 PM
A great article about what happens when the government identifies a vital service and subsidizes it for everyone.
You Are Living In The Medicare Tomato
https://thehappyhospitalist.blogspot.com/2008/03/you-are-living-in-medicare-tomato.html
Andrew Garland at April 3, 2019 7:22 PM
> It was an overt propaganda piece
> they I (in the US) found bizarre.
They Royal Navy has more admirals than ships, and half as many ships as the coquettishly-named "Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force." (Wikipee)
All these socialist paradises (paradi?) are counting on the United States for their defense. That may be a perfectly moral and sensible thing to do, no matter who's in the White House (perhaps even a multiply-bankrupted TV game show host).
But it's the might of the American taxpayer, fiscally and otherwise, which underwrites this pattern.
Crid at April 4, 2019 10:45 AM
Let us note that Mick Jagger is coming to the USA for a heart valve, while we realize the blatant lying about and fundamental flaws of Obamacare.
Radwaste at April 4, 2019 10:50 PM
Leave a comment